Economical?

Not too long ago the United Nations had a mock exercise in which it was discovered an asteroid was bearing down on the planet and an emergency response had to be formulated and executed in time. To deal with this extreme scenario they called in various experts. Most of these were, of course, scientists trained in various disciplines and physicists able to perform complex calculations. They did not, however, seek help from economists. They did not need to know how much it would cost to save the earth, whether it was economical; that calculation was both obvious and irrelevant.

Coincidentally, Jacobin magazine published a piece last January in which the author asks us to imagine that an asteroid is approaching earth. In this case the asteroid was a metaphor for climate catastrophe. The article makes the point that both political parties in the U.S. share an attitude of climate denial; one is simply overt and the other tries to obscure the fact with sympathetic sounding rhetoric. What the piece failed to articulate is that both parties and virtually all mainstream media rely on the analysis put forth by economists. These non-scientists make various claims about how much it will cost to stop climate catastrophe; how much it will effect the economy, how to maintain economic growth while slowing emissions, etc.etc. But again: why would we care one whit what it "costs" to save the earth? Without a planet there is no "economy". We need scientists to tell us what must be done and how to do it. Period. The cost is irrelevant and yet the attention it is given is indicative of the irrational system which rules our lives.

The best example of this absurd prioritization of "cost-effectiveness" is the Climate Leadership Council.This organization, clearly dedicated to protecting the sanctity of Markets ,boasts the backing of "3554 US economists,4 former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors", etc. etc. We are supposed to be impressed somehow that the same non-scientist ideologues who got us into the crisis in the first place have stepped up to help solve it- cheaply of course, using "sound economic principles". This is code for no regulations- let the Market determine our fate.

At the heart of the fight between supporters of the Green New Deal and the Climate Leadership Council is the cultural power of "economists and experienced policymakers" versus science and the scientists whose research it is based on. If you just started with the scientific consensus and worked back you would ban fossil fuel extraction and deal with the economic fallout using the State as stimulus and safety net. If you want to preserve the system of profit, accumulation and unlimited growth, you turn to economists and their weak, too-little-too-late tax proposals.

The definition of economical is being careful not to waste, the very antithesis of capitalism, a system built on waste and excess. CLC economists fail at this most basic level. The real question is; if you are seeking data and analysis on which to base decisions about ecology, do you look to scientific journals or the Wall Street Journal?